FILM critics are currently in a no-win situation. If we give a glowing review to a film that becomes a smash hit, there's rarely any recognition - not that we do it for the recognition.

However, if a film is panned and ultimately becomes a box office disaster then, as many have discovered this week, they're to blame.

It's a strange position to find ourselves in and, if I'm honest, one that is probably a long time coming. You see, the anger of Lone Ranger stars Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer - as well as producer Jerry Bruckheimer - has been focused on the (mainly US) critics following the mauling said film received.

However, their frustrations, to a point, do have some foundation. After all, many critics were already lining up to shoot down the film months ahead of it being released following stories of the budget spiralling to more than $225m. It's not something I see the point of. Negativity for the sake of it benefits no-one.

Production was reportedly halted as Disney attempted to trim some of the fat off the two-hour plus action adventure and recoup some of their money. However, in the end, the budget stayed north of $200m and this seems to be the focus of many detractors. Some of whom had already written the film off before seeing it.

Speaking to Yahoo! Movies website earlier this week, Depp and Hammer rounded on critics in their homeland.

Hammer, who plays the masked lead, said: "This is the deal with American critics. They've been gunning for our movie since it was shut down the first time.

"I think that's probably when most of the critics wrote their reviews."

Depp, meanwhile, said: "To round it out as a big group, the American press, the journalists, or whatever, I think reviews were written seven to eight months before we released the film.

And ignoring the fact The Lone Ranger is an adaptation of the 1933 radio show and resultant TV series, Bruckheimer added: "Critics keep crying out for original movies. You make one and they don't like it. What can I tell you?"

So, the main men behind this film are accusing us of making the film a flop. And with Disney admitting they're expecting to lose something like $160m on this movie even before it's released in the UK and beyond, that's a mighty big dent.

Here's the issue I have, though. Already this year we've seen a film with similar production problems and a massive budget going out of control, World War Z, being written off ahead of it being released. However, in this instance, despite all the negative press and snark (more on this in a bit), it has been a hit, taking nearly $600m at the global box office and was given some good (and glowing) reviews upon it hitting cinemas.

Last year it was John Carter - another Disney production - that became a high-profile box office disaster. Again, it was on the receiving end of some scathing commentary months before it came out. I loved it and was annoyed to see it perform to poorly.

So is the issue the actual product on show? Is Bruckheimer and his cast just taking the easy option? Or do we, as critics, bear some responsibility for putting the public off films months in advance?

As a reviewer of film, I will forever defend my right to say whether I believe a film is good or bad. That's what we're here for. People may disagree with what we think, but it's all just a matter of opinion. I rarely second guess what an audience will think about a movie. I'm not a fortune teller.

Having not seen The Lone Ranger, I can't comment on whether it's any good. Esteemed critics who I trust have given it mixed reviews here in the UK, but the US reaction was quite vitriolic. And this brings me back to the 'snark' I mentioned.

There's a negativity that's starting to permeate critics' writing - both in the US and the UK. Opinion pieces are littered with nastiness. Critiques are becoming rants about the bad things in certain films. The volume of snark is almost deafening. In part, this can be put down to the internet spawning sites run by film fans who aren't writers and who don't really understand how to review something. This isn't a denigration of all film bloggers. There are some fantastic guys and gals out there, but some revel in childlike putdowns of movies.

But for well-known critics to go down this path is as depressing as it is frustrating. Whatever happened to people writing about their LOVE of films. Focus on any positives. That's not to say we should ignore the bad. It's our duty to be fair to films, and some, frankly, are not.

Maybe this reaction from Depp and Hammer has been in the offing. Some writers are happy to dismantle a film before they've even seen it. However, they become precious divas when they themselves are the focus of negativity.

We can't have it both ways. If they think nothing of being completely negative when a film suffers problems during production, surely they can take any flak headed their way.

However, it would be nice if a film-maker was to, one day, hold his or her hands up and say: "We got it wrong. Tone/story is all over the place. It's our fault…"

But that won't happen. And some critics, somewhere, will continue to lambast films before they've seen them.

It appears to be the nature of the beast and it's showing no signs of changing.